Independent Study
By: Jazmin Brown
Completion Date: December 2024
This research aims to examine the trends in narcotic violations during the implementation of affordable housing initiatives in Philadelphia. The central focus is to assess how these housing programs, which were introduced to address housing accessibility and neighborhood stability, have influenced the spatial and temporal patterns of narcotic violations. The study also explores how other key socioeconomic factors, such as building demolitions, real estate transactions, and access to economic assistance programs like SNAP benefits, may potentially influence these violation trends. By analyzing the interplay between these factors during the affordable housing program’s timeframe, this research seeks to understand how urban renewal efforts and social support systems impact neighborhood dynamics, stability, and, ultimately, narcotic violations. The findings aim to provide valuable insights for policy-making, with the potential to inform future urban planning and crime reduction strategies in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia’s Division of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) plays a central role in the production of affordable housing to meet the city’s pressing housing needs and enhance neighborhood stability. As part of the Department of Planning and Development, the DHCD's Affordable Housing Production directs funding and resources toward initiatives that expand affordable housing opportunities for residents across all income levels. The Affordable Housing Production allocates funding to developers to support the construction and preservation of affordable housing units across the city. This includes constructing new affordable homes, rehabilitating and preserving existing housing stock, and providing assistance to first-time homebuyers. The efforts of DHCD’s Affordable Housing Production prioritize support for vulnerable populations, such as families at risk of foreclosure, individuals with disabilities, and homeless individuals, including those living with HIV/AIDS. In addition to increasing housing availability, these initiatives address broader community challenges by stabilizing neighborhoods, reducing vacant properties, and fostering economic growth. The development of affordable housing creates jobs, revitalizes commercial corridors, and contributes to the overall economic health of the city, ensuring that all Philadelphians have access to safe, affordable homes in thriving communities (Philadelphia Division of Housing and Community Development, n.d.).
The socioeconomic factors driving narcotic violations are intricately linked to patterns of urban development, economic pressures, and the availability of social support programs. In Philadelphia, these dynamics extend beyond affordable housing initiatives to include building demolitions, real estate transfers, and the distribution of SNAP benefits. Each of these elements may contribute to shifts in community stability and could indirectly influence crime trends.
Building demolitions in Philadelphia represent an ongoing effort to address vacant or dangerous properties. Such demolitions, conducted by both private owners and the Department of Licenses and Inspections, are often concentrated in economically distressed neighborhoods (City of Philadelphia, 2017). High rates of vacant or abandoned properties in these areas could be associated with increased narcotic activity, as they provide spaces for drug dealing and consumption. The removal of these structures could signify efforts to mitigate crime by reducing the availability of such spaces. However, the broader implications of these demolitions, such as their impact on displacement, gentrification, or community stability, require further exploration to understand their influence on narcotic violations.
Real estate transfers provide insights into the economic and social transformation of Philadelphia neighborhoods. The Department of Records maintains comprehensive data on property transactions, including sales, deeds, and sheriff sales (City of Philadelphia, 2018). High rates of real estate activity often signal gentrification or community revitalization, as wealthier residents and businesses invest in previously neglected areas. This shift can lead to a decline in narcotic violations due to improved economic conditions and the displacement of illegal activities. Conversely, in neighborhoods where real estate transfers reflect economic stagnation or speculative practices, narcotic activity may persist or even increase due to a lack of sustained community investment.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which replaced the federal Food Stamp Program, has been in effect since October 1, 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). SNAP benefits, as tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau, serve as a key indicator of economic need and the reach of social support programs in Philadelphia. By addressing food insecurity and alleviating economic stress, SNAP benefits have the potential to reduce factors that contribute to narcotic-related crimes. The relationship between SNAP distribution and narcotic violations can be examined to evaluate the effectiveness of social aid programs. For example, neighborhoods with high SNAP participation rates may experience reductions in crime if economic stressors are sufficiently mitigated. Additionally, tracking trends in narcotic violations over time in areas receiving significant SNAP benefits offers an opportunity to assess the broader impact of federal and state programs on community stability and public safety.
Together, these factors illustrate the complex interplay between economic conditions, urban policy, and crime. In Philadelphia, these developmental initiatives not only shape the city’s physical and economic landscape but may also offer valuable perspectives on the underlying drivers of narcotic violations. By integrating data from these domains, we can gain a deeper understanding of how socioeconomic changes may influence naarcotic-related activity and identify strategies to foster safer, more resilient communities.
This study strives to address a longstanding issue through an innovative approach. Previous research has extensively examined the relationship between crime, including narcotic violations, and affordable housing, particularly focusing on whether low-income housing initiatives in suburban areas contribute to heightened crime rates. In 2015, a study was done by Ayoung Woo and Kenneth Joh, studying whether subsidized housing developments increased neighborhood crime (Woo and Joh, 2015). Moreover, in 2013 a study was performed aiming to see if affordable housing projects harm in suburban communities (Albright et al., 2013). This leaves a gap in research, specifically from another perspective. This study seeks to fill this void by not only investigating the potential for affordable housing to mitigate crime but also by studying the efficacy of a specific program implemented within a particular city, and considering how other critical socioeconomic factors such as building demolitions, real estate transfers, and access to economic assistance programs like SNAP benefits interact with housing initiatives to influence neighborhood dynamics and crime trends.
Review in this area is crucial, as it holds the potential to inform policy adjustments and proactive measures aimed at increasing positive outcomes while mitigating negative ones. Furthermore, the insights generated from this study can extend beyond its boundaries, offering valuable understanding for communities at large. By studying existing programs and their outcomes, this research lays the groundwork for the development of new initiatives. Ultimately, this approach is a kickstart for innovation and improvement, enabling the replication of successful strategies.
Narcotic Violations:
Affordable Housing Units:
Building Demolitions:
Real Estate Transfers:
SNAP Benefits:
Other Socioeconomic and Urban Development Initiatives:
Data Bias:
Indirect Measures:
Temporal Mismatches:
1. Philadelphia Affordable Housing Production & Narcotic Violation Analysis
It has been shown that various aspects of the housing environment, such as neighborhood socioeconomic status, the availability of affordable housing, and exposure to crime and violence, can significantly influence narcottic-related challenges. Disadvantaged neighborhoods with limited access to affordable housing tend to exhibit higher rates of narcotic availability, trafficking, and substance abuse. Decisions regarding housing policies and urban development initiatives play a crucial role in shaping the availability of affordable housing, housing stability, and overall neighborhood conditions, all of which can impact drug and narcotics-related crime. Policies focused on expanding affordable housing options, enhancing housing quality, and revitalizing communities may indirectly contribute to addressing narcotic-related outcomes.
This study focuses on analyzing datasets sourced from Philadelphia, PA, over a ten-year period, specifically examining data on Affordable Housing Production from the Division of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), available through OpenDataPhilly, covering the years 2008 to 2018. The affordable housing data comes from the DHCD, which provides financial support to developers involved in the construction or renovation of affordable housing. These units are made available for sale, rent, and to accommodate individuals with special needs, highlighting the DHCD's critical role in addressing housing challenges in the city. This data will be cross-analyzed with Philadelphia crime data to explore potential correlations between housing development and crime trends. Understanding the relationship between affordable housing production and crime rates is important, as it may offer valuable insights into how housing policies and development initiatives impact crime levels, providing useful information for policymakers and urban planners.
The plot above illustrates the annual count of drug-related crimes from 2008 to 2018, using a time series line graph to highlight trends over this period. This visualization provides a clear representation of fluctuations and patterns in drug crime rates, offering a comprehensive view of their progression over time. By presenting the data in a continuous and visually engaging format, the graph helps identify key trends and anomalies that can drive further analysis. Analyzing these patterns offers valuable insights into the dynamics of drug-related crime in Philadelphia, enabling the development of data-driven strategies and targeted interventions aimed at addressing underlying issues and improving community outcomes.
As shown, the overall trend of narcotic violations declines from 2008 to 2018. The highest number of narcotic violations occurred in 2008, with the lowest point reached in 2015. After 2015, while narcotic violations slightly increased and fluctuated, the overall trajectory remains downward.
This bar plot provides a clear and concise overview of the total number of affordable housing units built each year from 2008 to 2018. The visualization presents this data in a straightforward, accessible format, allowing viewers to quickly understand annual trends in housing construction activity. The use of bars makes it easy to compare the number of units built across different years, highlighting fluctuations and patterns over time. By focusing specifically on the number of units built, this plot offers valuable insights into the city's housing development trajectory.
In terms of annual construction, 2008 saw a strong start, with the highest number of units built occurring in 2014. Since then, the number of units built has declined, though it remains steady and consistent year after year.
A time series plot was used to visualize the relationship between the total number of affordable housing units built and the crime rate per 100,000 individuals. This visualization enables the examination of trends over time and potential associations between these variables. By plotting both datasets on the same graph, fluctuations in housing construction and changes in crime rates can be analyzed together. This approach helps identify patterns or correlations between housing development and crime levels. Additionally, the time series format provides valuable insights into how these variables evolve over the designated period, enhancing our understanding of their relationship.
As shown, the cumulative number of affordable housing units built steadily increases over time. During this period, the trend in narcotic violation rates also decreases. This may suggest a potential link between the affordable housing initiative and the reduction in narcotic violations.
Above is a time series line plot comparing narcotic violation rates between Detroit, MI, and Philadelphia, PA. Overall, Detroit consistently exhibits higher narcotic violation rates than Philadelphia, with only small fluctuations over the years. From 2008 to 2018, Detroit's narcotic violation rates have seen a slight increase. In contrast, Philadelphia has experienced a steady decline in narcotic violations, despite some minor fluctuations, further supporting the potential connection between the city's affordable housing initiatives and the reduction in narcotic violations.
Why Detroit?
In Detroit, numerous affordable housing projects funded by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program have encountered ownership changes after 15 years, which has led to financial instability. These properties often face issues such as mortgage defaults and tax foreclosures, highlighting the unsustainable nature of affordable housing without continuous external investment. This financial strain has contributed to disinvestment in these properties, resulting in some becoming uninhabitable and further diminishing the city's housing stock. Additionally, the shortage of capable nonprofit organizations to manage and maintain these properties has exacerbated the situation. Between 2016 and 2022, many projects that reached the 15-year mark struggled financially, emphasizing the critical need for restructuring to ensure the long-term viability of affordable housing in Detroit (Dewar et al., 2020).
The bar plot provides a detailed breakdown of affordable housing units built by zip code, offering valuable insights into how housing development is distributed across different areas. This visualization helps identify which neighborhoods have seen the most investment in affordable housing, reflecting efforts to address housing shortages and improve living conditions for lower-income residents. By presenting the data in a bar plot, it becomes easier to compare housing development across zip codes, highlighting areas with the most significant improvements and those that may require more attention or investment.
The zip codes with the highest number of affordable housing units built are 19121 and 19104, with 401 and 39 units constructed, respectively. These areas are followed by five other zip codes, each with over 20 units built, demonstrating that certain neighborhoods have seen concentrated efforts in expanding affordable housing stock. Here we can identify spatial trends in housing development, offering a foundation for targeted policy decisions and resource allocation to further support underdeveloped or underserved areas.
The affordable housing data was organized by zip code to aggregate it into meaningful geographic units, facilitating the examination of patterns and variations across different areas within the city. By grouping the data by zip code, we were able to compare the distribution of affordable housing units and assess disparities in accessibility across neighborhoods. Visualizing the binned data on a geographic map provided valuable insights into these spatial patterns. This map allowed us to pinpoint areas with higher concentrations of affordable housing units while highlighting regions with potential gaps or shortages. Ultimately, this approach can inform policymakers and stakeholders in the development of targeted initiatives.
The Folium map above visualizes the distribution of narcotic violation incidents in relation to the availability of affordable housing across Philadelphia. The HeatMap layer emphasizes the spatial distribution of affordable housing, and narcotic violation incidents are marked with clustered icons for clarity. A color gradient is used to indicate areas with different levels of affordability: green shows regions with a higher concentration of affordable housing, while orange highlights areas with fewer affordable housing options.
Notably, significant clusters of narcotic violations are visible in the areas with orange heat, suggesting a higher density of violations in regions with fewer affordable housing options. This visualization provides valuable insights into the potential link between the availability of affordable housing and narcotic violation concentrations.
Declining Narcotic Violations: The annual count of narcotic violations in Philadelphia decreased from 2008 to 2018, with 2008 showing the highest count and 2015 marking the lowest point. Despite slight fluctuations after 2015, the overall trend reflects a steady decline in narcotic violations.
Affordable Housing Development: The number of affordable housing units built fluctuated over the years, with a peak in 2014 and a steady decline in subsequent years. This trend highlights the evolving dynamics of housing development in the city, with significant construction in earlier years.
Housing and Crime Trends: The cumulative number of affordable housing units built increased steadily, and the downward trend in narcotic violations over time may indicate a potential link between affordable housing initiatives and the reduction in narcotic violations.
Comparison with Detroit: Unlike Philadelphia, Detroit experienced higher and fluctuating narcotic violation rates. Financial instability in Detroit’s affordable housing projects, particularly those funded by LIHTC, highlights challenges faced by cities with limited investment in long-term housing maintenance.
Geospatial Insights: The distribution of affordable housing across zip codes reveals disparities, with areas like 19121 and 19104 receiving the most investment. Heat maps further emphasize that narcotic violations are concentrated in neighborhoods with fewer affordable housing options, suggesting a possible connection between economic challenges and higher crime rates.
Philadelphia Building Demolition & Narcotic Violation Analysis
This portion of the research focuses on building demolitions occurring within the City of Philadelphia, examining both private demolitions carried out by owners and contractors, as well as municipal demolitions executed by the Department of Licenses and Inspections in response to dangerous building conditions. By analyzing data on full and completed demolitions, this study seeks to understand the implications of these actions on urban landscapes and community safety.
Research has shown that neighborhoods with abandoned properties are often associated with higher crime rates. These can include incidents of assault, drug offenses, prostitution, arson, and homicide. The presence of vacant buildings indicates urban decay, which can lead criminals to perceive these areas as having weaker crime enforcement and oversight than well-kept neighborhoods. This concept is illustrated by the Broken Windows theory by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. The theory suggests that visible signs of disorder, such as broken windows, graffiti, and neglected buildings, signal to both residents and potential criminals that a neighborhood is not closely monitored or maintained. As a result, criminals may perceive it as a place where illicit activities can occur with little risk of detection or punishment. Furthermore, these unoccupied properties offer criminals a free environment to conduct illicit activities, including drug trafficking and prostitution (Frazier et al., 2013).
Building demolitions have been shown to decrease crime rates, as evidenced by a study conducted in 2019 which analyzed the effects of a large-scale demolition program in Detroit, Michigan. The study found that neighborhoods receiving more than five demolitions experienced an 11% reduction in firearm assaults compared to similar control areas, highlighting the potential of such interventions as a violence reduction strategy (Jay et al., 2019). This evidence supports the premise that demolishing vacant and abandoned properties can lead to safer communities by removing environments conducive to crime.
The focus on Philadelphia allows for a detailed exploration of how various types of demolitions contribute to the city's ongoing efforts in urban renewal and neighborhood revitalization, with an emphasis on how these urban development movements may influence narcotic violation rates. The data utilized for this analysis is sourced from the Open Philly database, encompassing years from 2007 to 2017. By concentrating on this specific timeframe, the research aims to capture trends and patterns related to demolitions within the city. This period reflects a significant phase in Philadelphia's approach to managing urban decay, addressing safety concerns, and fostering community development. As abandoned buildings are often associated with drug-related activities, the removal of such structures through demolition may contribute to a decrease in narcotic violations. By creating a safer and more visually open environment, urban development initiatives can disrupt the patterns of crime and enhance community engagement, ultimately leading to a reduction in narcotic offenses in Philadelphia. Through this lens, the study will investigate the potential connections between building demolitions and changes in narcotic violation rates, providing insights into the broader impact of such urban interventions on public safety and community well-being.
Figure 2.1, like Figure 1.1, illustrates the trend in narcotic violations over time, but with a slight difference in focus. While Figure 1.1 tracks the total number of narcotic violations from 2008 to 2018, Figure 2.1 emphasizes the narcotic violation rate per 100,000 individuals from 2007 to 2017. Despite this shift in measurement, the overall trends in both figures are quite similar. In both cases, there is a noticeable peak in violations around 2008, followed by a sharp decline through 2015, with slight fluctuations and an overall downward trajectory thereafter.
The bar plot above illustrates the cumulative building demolitions over the 10-year period from 2007 to 2017. This visualization provides valuable insights into the trend of demolitions over time, highlighting the fluctuations in the number of demolitions and their potential impact on urban development and revitalization. By examining the cumulative count, we can track the overall scale of demolitions, identify periods of significant activity, and assess patterns in building removal that may correlate with broader changes in the city’s landscape.
In 2007, there were 207 total building demolitions. Over the next 10 years, this number increased dramatically to 2,348 demolitions by 2017. The year with the most significant rise in demolitions was 2016, which saw a total of 369 demolitions—an increase from 242 demolitions in 2015. This surge in 2016 marked the largest annual increase, significantly surpassing other years, where demolitions ranged from 147 in 2008 to 361 in 2017. This spike suggests a shift in demolition activity, which may warrant further investigation into the causes behind this increase.
The side-by-side time series line plots above compare the trends in total building demolitions and narcotic violation rates by year. Notably, as the cumulative number of building demolitions steadily increases over time, there is an observable decline in narcotic violation rates. Despite minor fluctuations in narcotic violations after 2015, the overall trajectory suggests a consistent decrease. This juxtaposition of trends offers valuable insights, suggesting a potential relationship between urban redevelopment, as indicated by increasing demolitions, and the reduction in narcotic violations, although further analysis would be needed to determine causality.
The side-by-side hexbin plots of narcotic violation and building demolition locations of 2012 reveal distinct spatial patterns. The narcotic violation plot highlights areas with dense incidents of narcotics-related crimes, while the building demolition plot shows the distribution of demolished properties.
Interestingly, the top three narcotic violation hotspots are located in areas with low building demolition density, suggesting that these regions may not be benefiting from the potential positive impact that building demolitions could have on reducing narcotic violations. Areas with more demolitions may experience improvements in infrastructure and community safety, which could contribute to lower narcotic violation rates.
The following hexbin plots are similar to those presented in Figure 2.4, with the primary difference being that they reflect data from 2017. These plots again show the distribution of narcotic violations and building demolitions, with a similar outcome: areas with higher concentrations of narcotic violations generally do not overlap with areas of high building demolition density. This suggests that the regions with significant narcotic violation issues may not be receiving the same level of physical infrastructure interventions that could potentially reduce narcotic violation rates.
Narcotic Violations Trend: Figure 2.1 tracks narcotic violations per 100,000 individuals from 2007 to 2017, showing a similar overall trend to the total count in Figure 1.1. Both trends highlight a peak in 2008, followed by a sharp decline through 2015, with fluctuations and a continued downward trajectory thereafter.
Increase in Building Demolitions: The number of building demolitions increased significantly from 2007 to 2017, with a notable spike in 2016, which saw a dramatic rise to 369 demolitions. This increase, especially in 2016, could suggest an important shift in urban redevelopment efforts.
Potential Relationship Between Demolitions and Crime: Figure 2.3 compares building demolitions and narcotic violation rates, revealing a consistent decline in narcotic violations as demolitions increased. This suggests a potential link between urban revitalization efforts and reductions in narcotic violations, although further analysis is needed to determine causality.
Spatial Distribution of Demolitions and Violations: Figures 2.4 and 2.5 reveal that narcotic violation hotspots in both 2012 and 2017 generally do not overlap with areas of high building demolition density. This pattern suggests that regions with significant narcotic violations may not be receiving the infrastructure interventions needed to address crime.
3. Philadelphia Real Estate Transfer & Narcotic Violation Analysis
Real estate transfers, which reflect changes in property ownership through sales, inheritances, or other transactions, are valuable indicators of neighborhood dynamics. These transactions often signify broader economic and demographic shifts, such as gentrification or community revitalization. By analyzing real estate transfers, this study aims to investigate how these patterns influence narcotic and drug-related activities. Specifically, the analysis seeks to determine if increased real estate activity, often associated with economic growth and an influx of wealthier residents, correlates with reductions in crime and improved community stability.
This research supports the hypothesis that socioeconomic changes, driven by environmental factors like real estate transfers, can significantly impact narcotic violation trends. Neighborhoods undergoing gentrification may experience transformations in socioeconomic conditions, reducing the factors that enable drug-related activities. For instance, the arrival of wealthier residents and businesses, coupled with higher property values, often improves economic conditions and community resources. These changes may contribute to a decline in narcotic activity by creating environments less conducive to crime, aligning with the hypothesis that socioeconomic reforms can drive crime reduction.
A study of Portland, Oregon, strongly supports the idea that real estate transfers and gentrification can contribute to lower crime rates. Between 1990 and 2000, the inner-city areas that underwent significant gentrification saw a marked decrease in crime. Specifically, crime rates in five high-crime census tracts dropped dramatically, from 127 incidents to 56. This decline coincided with shifts in the area's demographics, including a move toward wealthier, more educated households, a decrease in the Black population, and rising housing prices. The research found a clear link between rising housing prices, income growth, and reduced crime rates. Median income in these neighborhoods nearly doubled, and property values saw a more significant increase than in the rest of the city. This suggests that an influx of wealthier residents, combined with rising property values, helped create a more secure environment, further supporting the idea that gentrification and real estate transfers may play a role in reducing crime (Sullivan, 2005).
The analysis of quarterly trends in narcotic violation counts versus real estate transfers from 2008 to 2018 reveals a generally correlated pattern between the two variables, with fluctuations in one often mirroring the other. However, there are distinct periods when the trends diverge, such as from Q1 2011 to Q2 2013 and from Q1 2014 to Q4 2018, where an increase in real estate transfers corresponded with a decrease in narcotic violation counts.
The periods of decreased narcotic violations could be associated with increased real estate activity, which may reflect broader socioeconomic and urban development changes. Along with these real estate trends, other factors such as shifts in demographics and community efforts could have contributed to the decline in narcotic violations. The interplay of these elements, along with real estate transfers, might have played a role in influencing crime patterns.
Correlation Between Narcotic Violations and Real Estate Transfers: Figure 3.1 shows a generally correlated pattern between narcotic violation counts and real estate transfers from 2008 to 2018, with fluctuations in one often mirroring the other.
Divergence in Trends: There were distinct periods of divergence, specifically from Q1 2011 to Q2 2013 and Q1 2014 to Q4 2018, where increases in real estate transfers were associated with a decrease in narcotic violations.
Possible Socioeconomic Influence: The periods of reduced narcotic violations may reflect broader socioeconomic changes tied to increased real estate activity, such as urban development or demographic shifts, which could have contributed to the decline in crime.
Complex Interplay of Factors: The analysis suggests that real estate transfers, alongside other factors like community efforts and demographic shifts, may have collectively influenced narcotic violation trends.
4. Philadelphia SNAP Benefits Recipients Analysis & Narcotic Violation Analysis
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a crucial economic support for low-income households, aiming to alleviate financial hardship and provide basic nutrition. This analysis seeks to explore the connection between SNAP benefits and narcotic violations, hypothesizing that higher participation in SNAP correlates with a reduction in narcotic-related crimes. By reducing financial stress, which often serves as a driver for drug-related crime, SNAP may help stabilize communities. The goal of this study is to analyze patterns of SNAP participation alongside narcotic violation data to assess whether increased access to economic assistance contributes to a decrease in these crimes.
Research from Chicago shows that staggering SNAP benefit distributions over several days resulted in a reduction of overall crime by 3.9% to 13.1%, with thefts decreasing by 10.5% to 11.4%. More significantly, grocery store thefts saw a decline of 17.5%, while general thefts dropped by 20.9%. These reductions indicate that a more consistent and stable income stream, as facilitated by SNAP, can ease economic pressures that contribute to crimes of financial necessity. Further studies reveal that running out of benefits before the end of the month leads to higher crime rates, underscoring the importance of timely and consistent distributions in mitigating crime, particularly in economically distressed areas (Carr & Packham, 2019).
Economic stability through programs like SNAP can not only reduce theft but may also help alleviate the financial stress that leads to narcotic violations.
The tree maps for narcotic violation rate by year and the annual percentage of the population receiving SNAP benefits provide valuable insights into the relationship between socio-economic factors and crime trends.
In 2010, when narcotic violations peaked, the proportion of the population receiving SNAP benefits was at its lowest, suggesting that limited economic support may contribute to higher crime rates. In contrast, in 2015, when SNAP participation was at its highest, the narcotic violation rate dropped to its second-lowest point of the decade, implying that greater economic assistance may alleviate financial stress and reduce crime.
This independent study set out to explore the hypothesis that affordable housing initiatives, combined with socioeconomic factors such as building demolitions, real estate transactions, and access to economic assistance programs like SNAP benefits, may influence the spatial and temporal patterns of narcotic violations in Philadelphia by altering neighborhood stability, economic accessibility, and community dynamics. Based on the analysis of data from 2008 to 2018, several potential relationships and conclusions can be drawn:
Decline in Narcotic Violations: The overall decline in narcotic violations from 2008 to 2018, with a notable decrease after 2015, may be linked to a variety of factors. The gradual reduction in violations suggests that changes in socioeconomic conditions could have contributed to these patterns, though the precise influences remain complex and multifactorial.
Potential Influence of Affordable Housing: The trend of affordable housing construction shows some alignment with the decrease in narcotic violations, particularly during periods of increased housing development in earlier years. This may suggest that affordable housing initiatives could have a potential role in stabilizing neighborhoods, improving economic accessibility, and possibly reducing crime. However, the study acknowledges that other factors, such as demographic shifts and community efforts, might also contribute to these trends.
Urban Revitalization and Crime Reduction: The relationship between increased building demolitions and reductions in narcotic violations points to the possibility that urban revitalization efforts, such as the removal of neglected/decaying buildings, may have an influence on crime reduction. While the overlap between demolition activity and crime hotspots was not always consistent, it is possible that these efforts helped to foster improvements in neighborhood conditions, potentially influencing the decline in narcotic violations.
Real Estate Activity as a Possible Influence: The fluctuating patterns of real estate transfers and narcotic violations may indicate that increased real estate activity could be linked to a reduction in narcotic violations. Although there were periods where real estate transfers increased, and narcotic violations decreased, the study suggests that broader socioeconomic and urban development factors likely played a role in these changes, and further research would be needed to fully understand this relationship.
Economic Support Programs and Crime: The observed pattern of reduced narcotic violations in years of increased SNAP participation, particularly in 2015, suggests a potential influence of economic assistance on crime rates. The relationship between higher economic support and lower crime rates indicates that programs like SNAP may help alleviate financial hardship, which could in turn reduce some of the socio-economic pressures contributing to crime.
In conclusion, this study indicates that affordable housing initiatives, along with socio-economic factors such as building demolitions, real estate transactions, and economic assistance programs like SNAP, may have a potential influence narcotic violation patterns in Philadelphia. While the relationships identified in this study suggest possible contributions of these factors to crime reduction, further research is needed to fully isolate their individual impacts and confirm the causality of these observed trends. A multifaceted approach to urban policy that considers these factors is likely to support neighborhood stability and potentially reduce narcotic violation.
Impact of Expanded Economic Assistance Programs on Crime Rates: Investigate the effects of additional socioeconomic programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or Universal Basic Income (UBI) on narcotic violations and other crimes by addressing economic instability in disadvantaged communities.
Role of Public Education Reforms in Neighborhood Stability: Explore how improved access to quality education, investments in underfunded schools, and after-school programs contribute to reducing crime and fostering long-term community resilience.
Affordable Housing Coupled with Mental Health Services: Analyze the influence of integrating mental health and substance abuse services into affordable housing programs on reducing narcotic violations and improving community well-being.
Effects of Community Policing and Local Governance Initiatives: Study how reforms such as community policing models, neighborhood watch programs, and participatory budgeting improve trust in law enforcement, reduce narcotic crimes, and enhance neighborhood stability.
Employment and Job Training Programs in Crime-Reduction Strategies: Assess how expanded job training, employment placement services, and workforce development initiatives for low-income residents impact crime trends, particularly in areas with high narcotic violations.